tv [untitled] January 27, 2013 3:30am-4:00am PST
items come forward. seeing none will close public comment. can we have a motion to forward this recommendation? okay will do that without objection. >> item number five, update of the transportation plan, information item. >> good morning commissioners. rachel -- principal transportation planner. what i would like to share with you as an update or summary of the outreach results from our fall 2012, the last time it came to you and updated you on the san francisco transportation plan, we were about to kick off a major round of outreach.
the purpose of that was to get feedback from the public and to educate the public and stakeholders about transportation needs, available revenues and also to get feedback on what the public's interest would be in transportation investment under a so-called mission scenario. if there were more revenues in the future than we expected to have. one of the key tools that we used during this outreach was a budget tzar game, where participants could create their own long-range plan. got a great response. these are the mechanisms that we used to get the word out about the budget game and about the transportation plan update in general. we had discussions about priorities,
investment priorities, trade-offs, revenues, and where we have shortfalls in other venues besides the online budget games. we went to community events in every district. we went to over 18 community groups and boards and commissions and had this conversation. it wasn't just the budget game. that we used to get this input. the budget game turned out to be very popular though; we had over 800 submittals. also submittals in spanish and chinese as well. the premise of this game was a participant would go to the site and would have a gauge a counter that would show the amount of transportation revenue that we
expect to have through 2040. the participant would make choices about how to invest that revenue in operations and maintenance, street maintenance, walking, biking, signals, capital expansion projects. the participant could choose whether or not they wanted to add additional revenue, raise taxes or fees in some way, have additional revenue to their budget and they could see what additional investment could be afforded if they made that choice. this is a summary other groups that we reached. i would note that we did ask for volunteer information about participants' zip codes, and incoming demographic information. only about 55 percent
of the participants actually gave us that. what you are seeing here is a map of the 55 percent of the participants who did give their zip code noting about 15 percent of the respondents were not san francisco residents or indicated they were not san francisco residents. these were some of the findings. this chart shows the choices that participants made when they created their budgets. the choices they made about investing in operations and maintenance. the dark blue bars show the choices about investments in transit operations and maintenance. the height of the bar is a percentage of respondents made the choice. 80 percent chose to increase the amount of
investment in transit operations and maintenance. that was a clear direction. >> where they weighed the same? operations and maintenance? >> they were the same. street operations and maintenance. i operate this that perhaps the recent passage of street bonds, in prop aa, there was more satisfaction in the level of investment in street maintenance. >> do we have a sense of who were actual transit riders? >> we did not ask the question. i don't know.
the map certainly, we did have somewhat more respondents from the central part of san francisco them from the outer part. just by the choices that folks made, for instance looking at this chart, this shows the choices that participants made about investments in programs. so each of these horizontal bars is a different program of investment. the blue segments of the bar is the share of respondents who wanted to increase investments in that program. you see that over -- actually 50 percent or two thirds wanted to increase investment in bicycling, walking, muni enhancements. those are the sorts of modes that these respondents wanted
to use. would allow participants to elect the decrease investment in the program as they wanted to. finally, we asked the disciplines about investment preferences, capital expansion projects. there were a number of participants the chose that project is part of their investment plan. at least half of the respondents chose his first four listed projects, transit effectiveness project, transit performance, -- the transit performance initiative, to explain what that is, is a placeholder for
a type of project that would be a major construction project in our transit network designed to address key system bottlenecks related to reliability or travel times. examples are the embarcadero - muni turnoaround, bottlenecks like that. the color of the bar represents the cost-effectiveness of the project. we provided the disciplines with information that we develop as part of the cost effectiveness evaluation of these projects and as part of this exercise we group group projects into three tiers. >> question for you.
i should have said this to you as you are flipping through the slides. this is great. i'm also at who we reached chart. my district and supervisor avalos's district is pretty paltry. it's not reflective of the district i represent. i am curious at how we should look at this and balance it out. >> first of all, only about half of the folks indicated that residential zip code. for about half the people, they chose to not indicate where they live. keep in mind that this map reflects the zip code of people who submitted a budget. we did a lot more outreach besides just offering the budget game. for instance,
we went to in district 2, we went to fleet week, and fisherman's wharf cbd and other groups that include > fisherman's wharf cbd is in district 3. i am disappointed that -- i don't want to speak for commissioner avalos, that you would have at least obtain an equal number of respondents from each district. as i look at these results, the people who responded it should be a priority to have equal numbers from every district or something coming close to equal numbers. >> thank you for the feedback. this is one of the reasons we come to you and wanted to get
that kind of input. we will do our best to get more respondents from each district and all the other ones that did not get as many as the average. will come back to you with more results. >> great. >> please continue. >> the last thing i wanted to summarize is a qualitative feedback that we got. not just from the budget game which had a comments section that people could use but also from the conversations that we have a community events through e-mails on the website and the phone line. this is what i would summarize, as some of the key themes that we heard outside of the budget game, and the other conversations. a couple of things to emphasize. one of the recurring themes that we heard from nearly everywhere group that we visited was number two, getting back to the basics.
the core system, the maintenance and operation of the muni system, and the street network. also something to highlight the but perhaps not evidence of the budget game itself was number seven. a real interest in cost savings in project delivery in other i guess institutional issues in addition to interest in more investments, there is an equal interest in getting more bang for the buck. and these are topics that sftp will address in addition to an investment plan we are having in the strategic initiative intended to make recommendations in these types of areas and that is actually the next segment of the presentation that
we will update you on. >> thank you for your presentation. >> good morning commissioners, -- chang, deputy for planning. i will give you the second part of this presentation but time is short. as rachel mention, of the feedback which will continue to go out and get, it will lead to the development of the final plan expected in the summer of this year. the sector policies highlighted in blue are meant to complement the investment programs. prioritize resources in new revenues should there be a desire to approve those. these policies generally we are combining them into a set of recognitions
called strategic initiatives. they're meant to be timely. the stakeholders and directions for the entire city. and space to what we all collectively believe are necessary in the next two years to guide various agencies work and input to other regional and federal authorities working in transportation. they also suggest areas for innovation, and experimentation and piloting. by now many of the new lands were approved happily. these include the large capital of vestments that you see here, venice and gary brt, etc., as well as many of the area planning studies,
market octavia studies, these are basically acknowledged that the land-use transportation plans need to be done more in a coordinated fashion. in addition the transportation sustainability program has come to focus with a cbc streamlining work. the second initiative from 2004 but we make a progress on is the idea of streets as public space. we don't have enough public open space. we have been using the available space more innovatively through things like sunday street, pavement to park, streetscape improvements such as avalencia and leland, and pilots, things like a better market street pilot. that we eventually got
legislated. the idea of using public space. by time of day. the third one, was tdm, travel demand management. the idea to use policy tools to shape and encourage people to think about alternatives and partner with new types of organizations, car sharing, bike sharing, finding the balance of working with private employers investing in regional and local shuttles. this whole area is fast-moving especially with the online apps in the new economy businesses growing and trying to enter the market and meet demand that the city and additional services have not been able to meet. and leverage investment in innovative policy between the city and nonprofit and private entities. that was sort of an overview
of our last county what plan and initiative to remind you that we will improve our infrastructure. therefore proposed initiatives relate to these for goals regarding livability, defining what everyone needs, so that everyone has a clear expectation in the city can improve its track record of delivering complete streets, as mentioned before we will explore things like parking in pricing in this time we are looking at engaging private employers and nonprofit sectors. the local to regional connection speaks to the need to address particularly in district 6 and 11 where the local and regional meet and how do we smooth out that connection and improve the choices people have to make
those trips. and finally project improvement delivery. we have to be able to look at other ways and other approaches to increase our cost effectiveness of our programs and approaches. we saw today we would give you a deeper look into the complete street initiative and come back to you with the other three. here you see this wonderful photo in front of city hall, it shows of the street is intended to be used as a complete street, a public open space. streetscaping, all the different modes. the status of streets deposed policy funding and institutional challenges.
not only in san francisco but anywhere. different parts of the street. the question is, how do we go about improving the streets? what is the right balance of doing small, medium and large things how many different ?elements is appropriate to squeeze into a project try to resurface the road. and address other modal needs. when there are conflicts how do we resolve them? whether it is mta, puc, how do we create more consistency? weirdly there is a funding impact. when we try to create to many of them things and address all different needs more project there needs to be a balance. that is the nature of the challenge. on slide 20 we summarize the
complete street recommendations. the goal is to provide more benefit with each project and create a more cost-effective approach. the way to oppose this is through four major strategies. reduce the cost and time to deliver the project, strength modal strategies, the tdp is finishing the eir,we really need not network plans. the third strategy is to clarify expectations. what happens when there are conflicts? to me consistent across agencies. and the last is to develop a consistent approach also for the funding of these projects. it often takes a patchwork of
funding sources to make the project complete. if a design is meant to have a number of different features perhaps it is appropriate for the funding plan to have a number of different sources. diving into the first two recommendations, considering all modes, the question is if i am a project manager do i know what the pedestrian needs are on the street? do i know what the bicycle needs in the traffic needs? and the sewer needs. the goal is to clarify what the modal needs are. that is all in progress. the next slide space to setting real expectations both for the public and within agencies. and making it clear what our policy should be on design features. what are things that must be in every project? we are making sure that ada needs be addressed.
should we go beyond that? what design processes are used? is there a practice in a culture of value engineering looking at alternative ways to meet her need that my be cheaper? do we get funding practices that are innovative? were we have cost-sharing across different agencies. when we have trade-offs, maybe we can't do 50%. we start with 20, 30 and work your way up before we promised to do the majority of the project is complete street projects. we are simply not there yet. the authority funds projects. the one area block program and prop aa - always there to
support street. we thought we would give an example of how the authority has an proposing to address these issues through the aa program. as you know we brought these forward to you in the last month, and this month. the idea is to incorporate these prioritizations. if a project has multiple users we give it more consideration. we try to make sure that we are consistent with modal plans. project to speak to these types of elements are given priority through for example prop aa. that is taken some work and it takes a lot of coordination. and sometimes there is
difference of opinion. the more we have consistency across agencies and across fund programs, the easy the process will be. there is a wonderful group already meeting, looking at using common tools, common database to help improve the consistency across the city. >> when we look forward to the future, i would expect that -- to do decent work. other agencies may not be aware of that. you want to get to the place where there is actual information shared about how streets are being redone, and resources from each entity that are being provided. do you expect that moving forward that if we have a situation again where -- would open the street without a lot of awareness on the departments. >> we have been working for some time dbw has made progress with regards to the
resurfacing program, they said a five-year schedule and let everyone know about it. if there is a need to hold back or accelerate, that is happening with regards to the resurfacing program. it is happening with the sewer project with the puc. those are limited but working better and better the not quite enough to get to all of the projects come through. there is a burgeoning initiative and effort and it is starting to work. but as we really roll out and prepare to deliver the street from program the whole range of obag and aa and other programs we need to make that a more broad practice not only for the resurfacing and sewer projects. thank you and without i will be happy to take questions. the last slide speaks on next steps. will come back to you the other three initiatives. completed adoption in the summer. >> commissioner --
>> thank you i wanted to follow up on some things that commissioner farrel brought up in terms of data obtained from the various parts of the city. >> sure. >> i wanted to know is based on some of the heavily used muni bus stop stations in san francisco, if you are actually going to those locations during peak hours in collecting data from those particular individuals for the muni section. i think especially in the morning time it would be very helpful to get their feedback on some of these issues as well. >> thank you for that. we have advertised on the shelters and buses. it's tough. we will try.
we have engaged the san francisco transit riders union. they promoted this extensively, and gave us feedback there is nothing that substitutes from going and director speaking to passengers. >> thank you. >> if there are no other comments and questions we can go on to public comments. thank you for your presentation. three minutes. >> one of the ways for us to appreciate our roads and streets in seven cisco is to visit some of the cities. stre ets in san fran cisco is
recently i visited cities in europe. one of the segments of the population that needs a lot of attention are our seniors. i was little bit late for this meeting because i went to kaiser to pick up my prescription. i saw two seniors fall in the middle of the road right there by gary. you should go there and walk by gary and see. there are -- in the road, near a hospital. you don't have to go far. we have this bond magic, this that and the other thing, but the primary utilities keep trashing our roads and not fixing them. when i looked at the presidio, created the infrastructure group over there, and had some sense
of how we have to maintain our infrastructure and our roads. one of the things that we don't have here is we don't have a schedule. even though dbw will want to do whatever they want to do they have no control over comcast or pg&e. when looking at our vehicles, our cars and trucks that ply our roads, there are certain areas where we have had again and again pedestrians colliding with their vehicles and dying. some of the hotspots we have been trying to do something. but the city and county of san francisco, is known for many pedestrians dine on the street. we have not had a hearing. we have